RE: Bugatti Veyron Super Sport: Spotted
Discussion
"Capable of hitting a certified Guinness Book of World Records speed of 268.9mph customer cars were limited to 258mph to protect tyre disintegration."
Not exactly a problem I will ever have, but I doubt I'd feel overly comfortable at the limited top speed knowing I'm 11 mph away from "tyre disintegration."
Not exactly a problem I will ever have, but I doubt I'd feel overly comfortable at the limited top speed knowing I'm 11 mph away from "tyre disintegration."
PHMatt said:
Is it not a case that the tooling to make a lot of the parts is where the expense went and due to such limited numbers of vehicles, the cost was disproportionate?
Tooling is expensive yes, but you'd struggle to get a tool that's more than a few hundred grand for an indicator stalk, no matter what it's made of! And things like the 918 have plenty of unique tooling for big things (like subframes and the monocoque), so that doesn't really wash.The reality of the situation is, I suspect, that someone at VW Marketing quoted the part price of an indicator stalk as listed on the parts system. Casual Google research suggests a number of different values (also suggesting it's a bit of an old wives tale), but the most common value seems to be either £4500 or £7000 or some combination of that. That seems more realistic as a RRP from your local friendly parts counter on something that perhaps costs £300 cost when you consider that a huge markup will be applied to a) discourage people from ordering them (supplying stuff away from production is expensive, and difficult) and b) apply a suitable markup to help fund the legal requirement for Bugatti to continue to stock enough parts to service the Veyron for at least 10 years post production.
RacerMike said:
I'm not sure I'm ever really that convinced by the whole 'it cost VW X per car in lost revenue'. They cost £1-2million to buy (plus local taxes, as they love to say), and no matter how special the thing was, it was still basically just a carbon monocoque with an internal combustion engine. It's a (admittedly very special) supercar in the true, original, supercar mould. There's no special hybrid components, no expensive batteries and no one off tech that's only applicable to the Veyron. Whilst it no doubt cost a lot to develop, suggesting that the material cost of the car is more than £1-2million is almost certainly rubbish.
development costs must have been in the billions for this car. Say two billions to justify plural.450 were produced. That's 4.4 million per vehicle.
If Veedub have got that kind of money to (speculatively) lose, then paying up over the diesel gate scandal won't trouble them at all.
What of the Chiron? Will that prove as costly, or are some components common to the Veyron?
Will they also do a zillion different iterations of the Chiron? Does it really "add value?" Why not just make them all largely owner-customized at source? Then pay to have the spec sheet destroyed so no-one knows what you've got and so cannot reproduce it... (That idea ©Me, just now, BTW)
What of the Chiron? Will that prove as costly, or are some components common to the Veyron?
Will they also do a zillion different iterations of the Chiron? Does it really "add value?" Why not just make them all largely owner-customized at source? Then pay to have the spec sheet destroyed so no-one knows what you've got and so cannot reproduce it... (That idea ©Me, just now, BTW)
Amanitin said:
development costs must have been in the billions for this car. Say two billions to justify plural.
450 were produced. That's 4.4 million per vehicle.
I don't buy the 'billions to develop'. Cars are expensive to bring to production, but ultimately the Veyron is one engine and chassis variant. Yes, it's impressive, and I'm not taking anything away from that, but billions? Unless Ricardo charged 1.5bn to develop the gearbox, I'm struggling to see where the money would go. They had minimal development cars, the engine is based on existing technology that VW had, and the chassis has nothing revolutionary in it.450 were produced. That's 4.4 million per vehicle.
As I said, I feel there was a huge song and dance made by VW about its cost, and the general public are easily taken in. The fact of the matter is, all supercar manufacture is a hugely costly exercise. Why do you think we don't see more supercar startups that make something viable? Koenigsegg and Pagani are the only two to have made it in recent times, and they've only done that through literally decades of investment....
boyse7en said:
lee_erm said:
Looks better than the Chiron to my eye. Can't say I've seen a Chiron in the flesh though!
Me tooBut I've not seen a Veyron in the flesh either, so that makes it a fair competition.
https://youtu.be/j8S_RpRN-YE?t=108
RacerMike said:
I'm struggling to see where the money would go. They had minimal development cars, the engine is based on existing technology that VW had, and the chassis has nothing revolutionary in it.
i am no automotive engineer but I believe you gravely underestimate the design effort required for something that has 1000 hp, can do 400 km/h (repeatedly, with an amateur driver), and is reliable and most importantly refined, usable and luxurious at the same time. This combination was unique and revolutionary back in 2005, and still is.RacerMike said:
The fact of the matter is, all supercar manufacture is a hugely costly exercise. Why do you think we don't see more supercar startups that make something viable? Koenigsegg and Pagani are the only two to have made it in recent times, and they've only done that through literally decades of investment....
I agree but is that for or against the point you are making?Amanitin said:
i am no automotive engineer but I believe you gravely underestimate the design effort required for something that has 1000 hp, can do 400 km/h (repeatedly, with an amateur driver), and is reliable and most importantly refined, usable and luxurious at the same time. This combination was unique and revolutionary back in 2005, and still is.
I am an automotive engineer, and knowing what some pretty huge ground up, large variant programmes cost, £2.5bn is at least double some massive programmes that include new technology, ground up platforms, completely new tooling for mass production and a great deal of new electronics.My personal thoughts are that the figure often quoted includes the costs involved in setting up a factory, workforce etc, which wouldn't normally be included in the development cost of a car.
Amanitin said:
I agree but is that for or against the point you are making?
No...I don't deny that making the Veyron would have been expensive....just not £2.5bn expensive.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff